Vatican talks are almost over, says head of SSPX

Bishop Fellay points to problems created by John Paul II beatification and interreligious gathering in Assisi

The superior general of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) has said that reconciliation talks with the Vatican will soon be coming to an end, with little change in the views of either side.

Bishop Bernard Fellay said in an interview published yesterday on the society’s American website that extra problems had been created by plans for the beatification of Pope John Paul II and for an interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi, Italy. These were in addition to disagreements over the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council.

The talks were launched in late 2009 in an effort by Pope Benedict XVI to repair a 21-year break with the society. The Pope said that full communion for the group’s members would depend on “true recognition of the magisterium and the authority of the pope and of the Second Vatican Council”.

But Bishop Fellay said his society went into the talks with a different purpose: to show the contradictions between the Church’s traditional teachings and its practices since Vatican II. That is “the only goal that we are pursuing”, he said, and the dialogue with the Vatican is not a search for compromise but “a question of faith”.

“Is Vatican II really a stumbling block? For us, no doubt whatsoever, yes!” he said. “Until now Vatican II was always considered as a taboo, which makes the cure of this sickness, which is the crisis in the Church, almost impossible.”

Bishop Fellay said the society has presented its doctrinal arguments in writing to the Vatican, followed up by theological discussion. “It is really a matter of making the Catholic faith understood in Rome,” he said.

Asked whether the Vatican participants in the talks have changed their thinking in light of the talks, Bishop Fellay answered: “I don’t think that you can say that.”

He added that recent events at the Vatican have, in fact, dispelled any “illusions” of progress.

“I am thinking about the announcement of the beatification of John Paul II or the announcement of a new Assisi event along the lines of the interreligious gatherings in 1986 and 2002,” he said.

Bishop Fellay said the scheduled beatification of Pope John Paul II on May 1 poses “a serious problem, the problem of a pontificate that caused things to proceed by leaps and bounds in the wrong direction, along ‘progressive’ lines, toward everything that they call ‘the spirit of Vatican II’.”

He said it was a “mystery” to him how Pope Benedict could convene another interreligious gathering next October in Assisi. The society was highly critical of the first such encounter 25 years ago.

“To ask people to perform religious acts during that gathering is absurd, because there is a radical lack of understanding among the various religions,” Bishop Fellay said.

He said Pope Benedict seems to understand that it is “impossible” for followers of diverse religions to pray together, but he added: “I find that he splits hairs. He tries to justify Assisi.” Bishop Fellay said the pope may be acting under pressure, or because he is alarmed at recent anti-Christian violence.

Asked what Catholics should do regarding the Pope’s announcement of the Assisi meeting, he said: “Pray that the good Lord intervenes in one way or another so that it doesn’t take place, and in any case start making reparation now!”

Bishop Fellay praised Pope Benedict for his 2007 document that eased restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, the so-called Tridentine rite, which governed the liturgy before 1970. But Bishop Fellay said that so far the move has had practically no effect on the Church’s liturgical life because of “massive opposition by the bishops”.

Pope Benedict cleared the way for reconciliation talks with the SSPX in early 2009 when he lifted the excommunications of four bishops ordained against papal orders in 1988. The Vatican said the dialogue was designed to restore “full communion” with members of the society, which was founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The Vatican said the talks were to focus on the concept of tradition, liturgical reform, interpretation of the Second Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal tradition, Church unity, ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions, and religious freedom.

I of course accept what Pius IX said in the quote you provided (although he shouldn’t have used the word “Roman”, because there are Eastern Catholic Churches which are nor “Roman”). What Pius IX doesn’t tell us in this particular statement is whether she is an institution with clear-cut boundaries, like an island surrounded by see, or the outside boundaries are blurred like those of a hill surrounded further down by mist so that one does know where the hill ends and the valey starts.

“I ask you if he was wrong to say there is only one true religion – in other words, that the others are, obviously, by definition, “false religions” ? No, it isn’t wrong to say that there is only one true religion and it is obviously the Catholic Faith, however it doesn’t follow that the others are “by definition” false.

They all contain a certain element of true religion, i.e. Catholic elements, in various degrees, the Orthodox Faith is, for example, more Catholic than is the Low Anglican. So, while all of them have certain degree of defectiveness none of them is completely false. You won’t tell me that the Moslem’s Faith in God as the Merciful, Compassionate Creator or the world, the Lord of the Day of Judgment is false; that their faith in Jesus as Prophet is false, that He was born or Mary etc.

Profidebookstore

Which of the terms I use you do not understand?

Profidebookstore

“After the condoms fiasco”
I don’t know of any condom fiasco. I think it’s a wishful thinking by dirty media.

Profidebookstore

Scrap that I already dealt with; perhaps you would consult a dust bin.

Profidebookstore

Irrelevant.

Profidebookstore

I wonder how frequent are sermons about Humanae vitae in SSPX centres.

Profidebookstore

Leticia is right, but it is you who aren’t

Anonymous

Once again, PFBS, you show yourself unaware of the facts.

Anonymous

Navigator,

Having been a “victim” of pro-women’s ordination and general dissenter, Bishop Ambrose Griffiths (I once lived in his diocese of Hexham and Newcastle), I think it is irrelevant whether the “miracle” conference (with its “intimate worship” (?!) is “sanctioned” by the Church or not. Avoid it like the plague. Dangerous stuff.

Anonymous

PFBS,

You are so very wrong on everything, just about, that I advise you to steer clear of digging any more deep holes. Or should that be “bottomless pits”…

Anonymous

No, my example is not irrelevant. It is a very clear example of how we cannot go along with everything a pope says just because he’s pope. Think!

Is that where your previous comments are – in a dust bin? That’s interesting…

Anonymous

Having just read your post below, in response to RJ, after all the documentary evidence provided by Martyjo to prove that the SSPX Masses are not illicit, and after reading all your posts, studiously ignoring the facts and sticking to your own way out ideas, I have absolutely no intention of post the text of anything on here for you to ignore and continue as before.

I don’t know what your game is, but I’m outa here. You are a fan of Islam. You admire the Qu’ran (and stop being silly about having a copy – I’ve been a Head of RE for over twenty years and have a copy of the Qu’ran in front of me right now – so????) – you can’t praise that religion enough yet you spew out hatred for the SSPX, and all that they stand for – that is, the traditional Catholic faith.

I really don’t think I can help you, PFBS. God bless.

Anonymous

You always ask for official statements when you don’t like an answer.

I’m sorry, but I cannot take you seriously at all., I said a fond farewell above – now it’s a definite goodbye! Won’t read any more of or posts, PFBS, to avoid the temptation to reply. I think you are having us on, I really do!

Anonymous

Could you ask for one for the EditorCT Hairdo & Outfit Fund, while you’re at it?

Anonymous

Listen, have you folks read anything except the Catholic Herald in your entire lives? Have you read St (Cardinal) Robert Bellarmine on the LIMITATIONS of papal authority?

And what about the letters of St Catherine of Siena, 14th century, Doctor of the Church, to popes? Try this for size:

“Most Holy Father,…

because He [Christ] has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul…. If you do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear that Divine Judgment might descend on me. (Letter to Pope Gregory XI)

And this (once you manage to close your jaw)

“Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. (Letter to Pope Gregory IX, 1376.)

Remember, St Catherine was not witnessing popes inviting pagans to pray alongside him (to their false gods) for world peace or giving sexual advice to prostitutes via interviews to journalists.

Grow up for goodness sake – popes are not cult leaders. Behave yourself.

Anonymous

Maybe you could ask the Archdiocese of Glasgow to donate a few groats from the diocessan funds!!

Anonymous

Are you saying I’ll need all the funds of a large archdiocese to fix my hair and outfit? Cheek!

Anonymous

Not at all. Just thought there might be a couple of quid left over from the Italian garden project and the conversion of the Cathedral into a liturgical dance hall! Anyway, if the liberals had their way your outfit would have arrows on it and your hairdo would be a scrubber cut. You know how illiberal the liberals are.

RJ

A very late reply by me.
You say “The ultimate acid test, of course, by which any Papal teaching is to be viewed, is in light of what previous Popes and Councils have taught in the matter.” but, again, there is a hidden assumption in there: you are claiming personal authority to stand in judgement over what the Pope and bishops teach now compared with what Popes and bishops taught in the past (which I believe is in continuity, though of course I do not claim decisive authority in such a matter but rather trust in Christ’s commission and promises to the apostles and their successors.). The current Pope and bishops are bearers of the very same teaching authority that was exercised by their predecessors. I may not be able to dot every i and cross every t in showing continuity but I don’t believe I have to: I am limited. Ultimately, there’s an act of faith involved. No doubt there are difficulties of reconciling statements but these can’t be insuperable in principle (even if not by me).
Have read Mortalium Animos recently. I don’t want to get into a protracted discussion but I would venture to suggest that, were the then Pope’s concerns met, his teaching would not preclude dialogue with non-Catholics that did not involve compromising the fulness of the Catholic faith (i.e. not on the basis of “pan-Christian” assumptions). I say this after a week or more interval. I would need to go back to it.

Anonymous

testing

Anonymous

You are quite wrong to suggest that by using my Catholic right to assess Papal teaching in the light of past Magisterial teaching I am assuming to myself a forbidden authority. Catholics are free children of the Church, not slaves to blind obedience.

Obedience in that which is infallible and which is in line with what has always been Magisterially taught, yes. But blind obedience to the Pope as if he were at all time impeccable? No, that is not the teaching of the Church. If it were, then how do you account for the adoption of the Arian heresy by all the hierarchy of the 4th century except Bishop Athanasius? And how do you account for the heresy of Pope Honorius, who was posthumously condemned by the Church?

The duty of every Pope, and indeed the bishops and priests, is to transmit faithfully that which has been handed down. They have no authority whatever to introduce novelties which are clearly condemned by the Magsterium throughout the ages. Catholics have not only the right but the duty to remain faithful to the higher obedience due to God in such matters.

You mention Mortalium animos, but how does Pope John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran fit with that? The divinity of Our Lord is denied and the Blessed Trinity is blasphemed in the Koran. How does Assisi, the calling together of the world’s false religions to pray to their false gods for world peace, during which an idol of Buddha was placed atop a tabernacle and worshiped, fit with that?

Pope John Paul II also participated in an interfaith ceremony in a Rome Synagogue of Talmudic Jews. The Talmud declares Our Lord to be a sorcerer and the son of a whore named Miriam the hairdresser. How does that fit with Mortalium Animos?

You see! One has to have recourse always to the authentic Magisterium in the weighing of Vatican II, particularly as that Council was pastoral, not dogmatic. The Pope himself has said that we must view Vatican II in the light of tradition, thereby confirming that every Catholic has a duty to question issues relating to that Council. Pope Benedict has told us that Vatican II was not a “superdogma.”

If a mathematical genius told you that 2+2=5, would you accept that just because he is an authority in mathematics? Of course you wouldn’t, you would weigh his proposition against what mathematicians have always taught, which is that 2+2=4.

It’s the same with the Papacy. No Pope can suddenly tell us that today’s ecumenism and interfaith initiatives are good and praiseworthy when all their predecessors have said the very opposite. We are the sheep of Christ’s flock, not a collection of dumb oxen.

Rock

Either SSPX must follow Benedict 100% or admit that he is uncatholic and an anti-pope. Those are the only to catholic options. Stop riding the schismatic fence.

Rock

Either SSPX must follow Benedict 100% or admit that he is uncatholic and an anti-pope. Those are the only to catholic options. Stop riding the schismatic fence.

T. Inkva

The Pope (and all those in the future) should conform to an exorcism prior to taking office. It appears this pope is not Catholic and is driven by a diabolical source. It is something like the “Trojan Horse” that has invaded the Vatican. There are so many evils in the world today being ignored by the church that were always condemned by the popes prior to Paul VI. We no longer have the Church to defend us against the evil uprising upon us. Since Vatican II it is easy to document history that this Council and it’s changes to tradition have caused a great apostasy in the faithful. Intentionally? Indeed. Let us pray the rosary, at the request of Our Lady of Fatima, that the pope with all the bishops will consecreate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart to stop the worldwide errors of communism and restore all things to Christ.

RJ

I checked up on Honorius:

According to Philip Hughes SJ, in A History of the Church, “he fails utterly to grasp the point” of a question addressed to him on the Monothelite question. “That Honorius held and taught the faith of Chalcedon is clear enough…It is equally clear that he had failed to grasp that a new question had been raised”. His fault was to impose silence on the orthodox and the innovators alike and it is for this that he was later criticised. (p 295). It is in this sense that a later Pope and council censured him, in very strong words, which have been taken as evidence by anti-Catholic apologists that he taught heresy.

Ronald Knox, while addressing an accusation that the Pope had taught heresy officially, says the same: “Honorius, so far from pronouncing an infallible opinion in the Monothelite controversy, was ‘quite extraordinarily not’ (as Gore used to say) pronoucing a decision at all” You cannot each erroneously if you are not teaching at all. (quoted in “catholicism and fundamentalism” by Karl Keating, p229)

Again, Ott says (I translate from the German original):
Honorius’ thought was orthodox but he unintentionally promoted the heresy by forbidding talk of two modes of action. The sixth general council unjustly accused him of heresy. Pope Leo II accepted the anathematisation but did not accept the council’s reasoning. He reproached him not for heresy but for negligence in suppressing error.” (Ott, Dogmatik, p225).

Whatever the merits of your other poiints, I don’t think that point stands up.

Anonymous

It is the same in the eyes of the Church with one who teaches heresy as with one who knowingly tolerates it. Honorious was condemned and excommunicated by two popes (Agatho and Leo II), as well as by a number of ecumenical Councils. His name also appears in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh, anathematising heretics, in the following words: “Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions” (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).

I think these words from Pope Leo II’s letter, confirming the decrees of the ecumenical Council of Constantinople, should be decisive in the question: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

There may well be a lesson here for the ecumenical, interfaith, conciliar Church authorities of today. How many times has this Apostolic tradition been suppressed in favour of conciliar novelty? How many times has Our Lord’s name been suppressed, the only one under heaven by which men can be saved, for the sake of human respect and the myth that “we are all the children of Abraham” regardless of whether or not we reject the Saviour? It’s worth considering, as the precedent set by Honorious clearly shows.

RJ

The 3 sources I mentioned consider that Honorius did not knowingly tolerate heresy. He failed to appreciate what was at stake.

Anonymous

If he did not tolerate heresy, then why did the Church formally condemn and excommunicate him? It doesn’t make any sense.

The sources you quoted generally agreed that Honorious himself did not fall into heresy. I did not read into their comments that they also considered him to be unaware of the heresy he is said to have been silent about, and indeed permitted to flourish by the penalties he imposed on any who put forward the orthodox Catholic view.

No, it is certain that Honorious wanted all debate on the Monothelite controversy silenced for convenience’ sake, thereby allowing the heresy to flourish in the Church. He was a well-educated pope who understood these matters perfectly well, not some sheep herd from the Pyrenees. That was certainly the authoritative conclusions of two popes and three ecumenical Councils. I prefer their conclusions to a handful of revisionists.

RJ

Well, I am glad we are agreed that he was not a heretic.

I wonder why the condemnation of Honorius was dropped.

Anonymous

Not a personal heretic, no, he aided the spread of the heresy by his wilful silence, which is as bad for a pope as being a rampant heretic. As to his condemnation being dropped, it hasn’t been. The condemnation merely ceased to be declared publicly the more distant the memory of the old redundant heresy became.

RJ

What evidence would you be able to show that “it merely ceased to be declared publicly etc.”?

Anonymous

I think the evidence lies in the absence of any Church renouncement of the formal condemnation of Honorious. Had the declarations against this pope been revised, then I think there would almost certainly be a record of it. To my knowledge, no such record exists, therefore we must assume that the penalties stand.

RJ

Interesting. Let’s leave it there.

Aaron (Philippines)

If I followed your way of thinking then the Pope in a Church council has created an error and thus disproved Jesus saying that the Gates of Hell will not prosper (or something like that) and thus Jesus was lying. Sounds so Protestant to me. Jesus said the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church he made St. Peter and his successors feed (feed my sheep). I believe what was commented here, SSPX is arrogant and their arrogance blinds them. The Church is together in unity not only the Pope, but the bishops and importantly all Church Militant in union with him. We are 1.2 billion, our faith is simple but it is strong, I am insulted to think that the SSPX would think we blindly follow the Pope, instead we blindly follow Jesus who promised that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against his Church appointing St, Peter (and his successors) to feed. God bless all!

Aaron (Philippines)

If I followed your way of thinking then the Pope in a Church council has created an error and thus disproved Jesus saying that the Gates of Hell will not prosper (or something like that) and thus Jesus was lying. Sounds so Protestant to me. Jesus said the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church he made St. Peter and his successors feed (feed my sheep). I believe what was commented here, SSPX is arrogant and their arrogance blinds them. The Church is together in unity not only the Pope, but the bishops and importantly all Church Militant in union with him. We are 1.2 billion, our faith is simple but it is strong, I am insulted to think that the SSPX would think we blindly follow the Pope, instead we blindly follow Jesus who promised that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against his Church appointing St, Peter (and his successors) to feed. God bless all!

Clearly, Christ has not abandoned His Church and His promise not to let the gates of Hell prevail, is evidenced in the very fact that the Popes did not pronounce Vatican II to be an “infallible” Council, but (to quote Pope Benedict) “a merely pastoral Council.”

So, Aaron, by virtue of the fact that the Popes went out of their way to emphasize that the novel views which came out of this Council are not binding on the faithful, is proof positive, that Our Lord has, of course, kept His promise!

Dan

The P.C.E.D. has been appointed directly by Pope Benedict XVI as the official Church authority to deal with all matters of the FSSPX so the word of the Pontifical Commission is the word and authority of the Holy Father and therefore the final word on this matter.

DBMcGinnity

How can you have facts about hypothetical and probably nonsensical issues that are in effect “hocus-pocus? This facile stuff has nothing to do with The Love of God or the teachings of Jesus Christ. You are more likely to find God with the homeless in The Simon Community and shelters for the homeless than in Westminster Cathedral or in your fatuous expressions of sacred devotion and unshakeable zealousness

Kazach23

“many of us Catholics actually believe the Holy Spirit guides the pope”, Well Jamesharveyjnr, we from FSSPX do too, and that belief should be reason enough for you to get to the REAL conclusion: these Vatican II Popes cannot possibly be real popes, as they constantly fall into one heresy after another. They are not Popes guided by the Holy Spirit, they are Frauds, they are AntiPopes.

Kazach23

Leprechaun, your position is self-contradictory. The Second Vatican Council WAS ex cathedra, both John XXIII and Paul VI attaching their utmost papal authority to each and every document the Council produced, including the New Ordination Rite and New Mass of 1968. So either you recognize their authority and submit to Vatican II and all its heresies and errors, OR you draw the necessary conclusion THAT THESE VATICAN II POPES CANNOT BE REAL POPES, since their teaching contradicts everything the Church has ever taught. FSSPX apparently is still not ready to draw that final but necessary conclusion. We have been CHEATED. The guy in the white cassock in Rome IS NOT THE POPE.

Kazach23

We do not need to go into all these canonical technicalities. A Pope who publishes a book about Jesus CANNOT SHOW ANY HERESY WHATSOEVER, IF HE IS TO BE CONSIDERED A REAL POPE. Ratzingers latest book “Jesus of Nazareth -Holy Week” is so stuffed with complete Anti-Catholic heretical NONSENSE, that you cannot possibly defend this man as a legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church. For example: since when can Jews dispense with the necessity of conversion to the True Catholic Faith, as Ratzinger claims? If a “Pope” has the audacity to claim that the people of Israel do not need conversion, every reasonable discussion ends: the guy CANNOT possibly be the real head of the Church.

DBMcGinnity

“ONCE A CATHOLIC” (with emphasis of past tense)
This is real “moral philosophy”? I was chatting to a Senior Muslim Cleric, who is a good friend, and he was telling me with great pride how far and how fast Islam has spread in the past twenty-five years. He was also very confident about the future proliferation of Islam in the next twenty-five years. So keep up your ideological fight about doctrinal trivia, and soon there will be nothing to fight about, except “Sharia Law”. Because I am old, it will not affect me, but I think that Catholics will soon have more to worry about than the hypothesis of popes and anti-popes. I think that this might be the time or all Christians to close ranks. Having a meeting at Assisi might not be such a bad idea, anyhow, I am an old fool, and what do I know?

Anonymous

I think you will find that the results of the Second Vatican Council were not pronounced ex cathedra. The Holy Ghost ensures that untruths cannot be declared as infallible truths.
The faithful are not required to accept the outcomes of Vatican II.
The Popes since that time have made errors (they are not impeccable) but that does not render them non-Popes as you suggest.
Consider: If they were non-Popes, the Cardinals they created would have been non-Cardinals, and no real Pope could be elected after the valid Cardinals had passed away. Thus, the Church founded by Christ would cease to exist, and we have His promise that this will never be the case.
You are free to side with the sedevacantists if you wish, and to support any of the numerous alternative “popes” they propose, but I hope that wiser councils will prevail while you still have the time to reconsider your position.
I should prefer not to discuss this further if you would be so kind.

Kazach23

Summorum Pontificum is like a gift we already possessed. Should we really be thankful for something we already got from the Lord Jesus Himself and the Holy Pope Pius V?? Something that was never abolished and CANNOT BE ABOLISHED in eternity, according to canon law? Thank you, Joseph Ratzinger, for giving us something we already owned for many many centuries!! In return we will kiss your feet and forget all about the heretical manure you are writing on a daily basis. We will also turn a blind eye on your God forsaken plans to renew the blasphemous “interreligious celebration” of Assisi, and we will assure you of our heartfelt support…….

Kazach23

Martyjo, you have smelled the rat but you have not yet understood it’s logical conclusion. A real Pope cannot be a heretic. If a “Pope” teaches heresy, under what level of authority whatsoever, he cannot be a real Pope, OR if he was, he would fall out of his dignity instantly and without any official declaration. We do not even need 1917 Canon Law to prove that. Even the 1983 Codex says so (canones 1364 paragraph 1 and 194 paragraph 2). Every “Pope” teaching heresy looses his papacy “Latae Sententiae” that means, immediate and without declaration. Heresy is incompatible with the Holy Spirit. Vatican II was, despite many claims who deny it, a Council ratified by the highest papal authority and MUST BE OBEYED IF YOU CONSIDER THESE FALSE POPES TO BE TRUE. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been teaching heresy for many years, and this, as a Catholic, should bring you to the painful, but necessary conclusion, that the true Papacy is lost, OR UNDER COVER. Rome has been overtaken by a Dark Church.

Kazach23

No. The modernists in Rome have broken communion with the Church of all times. Their “True Mass” is a heretical Mass, written by Protestants, Jews and Freemasons. “Pope” Ratzinger is a fraud in a white cassock, pretending to be the Pope. He smiles his false teeth to Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Moslems and any other idolator in the world except to the ones who are truely faithful to Christ and His Church.

Kazach23

This is another “the-priests-are-bad-bud-the-pope-and-his-bishops-are-good” apology for the post-Vatican II rampage in the Church. The blindfolded Fraternity of Saint Peter thinks they have found the true solution: berating the bad hippy priests who messed things up in the parishes, but intensely loyal to the frauds in white cassocks who called themselves “popes” in the last five decades, they continue to justify every ridiculous heresy these Vatican II antipopes are selling to the public as “catholic teaching”, including their false protestant Mass, which was forced upon the people by Freemasons, the lethal enemies of the Church. Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and Ratzinger ARE FRAUDS, the genuine Papacy has long gone underground.

Kazach23

They don’t attack the Pope, they attack a FRAUD in a white cassock, pretending to be Pope of the Catholic Church. The man prays with idolators and nature-worshippers. How can anyone seriously consider this person to be Pope?